Ita/76/2015 Of K.p.damodaran Nair v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2015/13TH JYAISHTA, 1937 I.T.A.No. 76 of 2015 --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 288/2014 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 12-12-2014 APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: -------------------------------- K.P.DAMODARAN NAIR 35/1872, SABARI, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025 BY ADVS.SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL SRI.R.SUDHIR SMT.MANJU RAJAN SRI.P.P.NARAYANAN SRI.K.S.MENON (K) RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ---------------------------------- THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), ERNAKULAM 682 018 R BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-06-2015,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/3/2014 OF THECOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/3/2014 OF THECOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ANNEXURE C: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2014 OF THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.12.2009 ADDRESSEDBY THE APPELLANT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ANNEXURE E: TRUE COPIES OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED24.12.2009 AND THE STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT WITH CANARABANK. ANNEXURE F: TRUE COPIES OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED1.5.2O06 AND THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONALBANK. ANNEXURE G: TRUE COPIES OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13/11/2009AND CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 22/2/2009 FROM C.G.SREELATHA. ANNEXURE H: TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED14.12.2007 FROM K.P.GANGADHARAN NAIR. ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPIES OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 1.12.2009 ISSUEDBY SYNDICATE BANK AND CHEQUES DATED 5.3.2007. ANNEXURE J: TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT DATED 15.12.2009FROM THE APPELLANT. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T.A.No.76 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3[rd] day of June, 2015 Shaji P. Chaly, J. JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A.No.288/14 dated 12.12.2014pertaining to the assessment year 2007-2008, by which the learnedAppellate Tribunal has partly confirmed the order of the 1[st] AppellateAuthority, which confirmed the order of the assessing authority makingaddition of an amount of Rs.2,59,330/-. 2. Brief facts are thus: After processing the return under Section 143(1) of the I.T.Act, the case was selected for scrutiny under Section 142(2)and the Assessing Officer made various additions being credits found in thebank account of the appellant, which all, except one credit, were by banktransfers. 3. Even though the Assessing Authority provided sufficientopportunity, appellant did not produce satisfactory evidence so as tosubstantiate the claims made by him before the Assessing Authority against inclusion of the amounts proposed by the income tax officer andthereupon the assessment was finalised as proposed. The 1[st] appellateauthority also confirmed the order of the assessing authority. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the Revenue. 5. The grievance of the appellant herein is that both the Appellate Authorities confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer,without appreciating the case put forth by the appellant in a proper andlegal manner. 3. Even though the Assessing Authority provided sufficientopportunity, appellant did not produce satisfactory evidence so as tosubstantiate the claims made by him before the Assessing Authority against inclusion of the amounts proposed by the income tax officer andthereupon the assessment was finalised as proposed. The 1[st] appellateauthority also confirmed the order of the assessing authority. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the Revenue. 5. The grievance of the appellant herein is that both the Appellate Authorities confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer,without appreciating the case put forth by the appellant in a proper andlegal manner. 6. The learned Appellate Tribunal, after considering all thecontentions raised by the appellant, came to a categoric conclusion thatthe appellant could not explain the inflow into his bank account fromvarious sources and therefore the factual findings with regard to theadditions made by the Assessing Authority cannot be interfered with by it, except one addition made by the Assessing Authority againstdiversion of amounts for non-business considerations which was foundin favour of the appellant in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the order of theAppellate Tribunal. 7. We have considered the questions of law raised in the appealmemorandum, contentions put forth by the counsel for the appellantand materials on record and we are satisfied that no grounds have beenmade out for our interference in the order of the appellate Tribunalinvoking the jurisdiction conferred on us under Section 260(A) of theI.T.Act. Therefore, the appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jes SD/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE